I guess that's good news?
Read the order and see for yourself:
Interestingly, and not surprisingly, the response starts with attacking the Court and then jumps into the argument made at the hearing. The first paragraph of the order to which this is a response begins with the fact that "[N]o law has been cited for the filing of "objections" to a hearing...." and "[T]o the extent the Court construes same as motions (sic) again they violate Local Rule 7.1(a)(1)". This is totally ignored in the response. Apparently things like following the law and the local rules take a significant backseat to ranting and raving and attacking the Court. Nonetheless it is those very rules and laws that govern our practice and procedure.It goes on (downhill?) from there.
The ranting includes using a statement made by the Court after the plaintiffs filed their objections to the hearing (in D.E. 1094) as justification for the filings they made before any such statement was made!